Should HS2 have a wider track gauge?

[suzanneparis]

Would it be a good idea for the new HS2 line to be in a much wider gauge? Thus allowing wider trains able to carry many more passengers.

Indeed at the same time perhaps they could allow for double decker trains.

With wider and double decker the number of passengers that could be carried on one train would be massively increased.

Perhaps 'Brunel' gauge would be appropriate!

 

[najaB]

You are confusing two things (track gauge and structures gauge). See this thread.

 

[J-2739]

I'm a bit confused...you say track gauge in the title but you OP talks about the loading gauge?

 

[suzanneparis]

I do understand the difference between gauge and structures gauge.

But the point is, that the new line should be built to a much wider size so it is able to carry more people.

 

[najaB]

I do understand the difference between gauge and structures gauge.

I don't think you do. European railways run wider and double deck trains on exactly the same track gauge as we do.

 

[matabiau]

The "engineering" solution would probably be to go to broad gauge in order to run wider trains with more capacity for passengers. This would only work if HS2 was built in isolation. In the real world this is not possible as rolling stock would need to circulate elsewhere on the national network.
Double decker trains would be a compromise assuming uture upgrades to the existing network included an increase in height to meet the international standard.
I'm sure it is cheaper to build a train to standard guage than to a unique gauge as fewer modifications are required to existing products such as the French TGV or the Gearman ICE.

 

[J-2739]

Since your talking about loading gauge, I'd put in my opinion...
I feel it was a mistake going for UIC GC. They should have gone for a Shinkansen gauge instead.

 

[suzanneparis]

But ultimately most of our network needs to be able to handle more passengers.

So moving HS2 over to a new standard could be the first move in many that will result in greater capacity on the network.

Plus generate jobs in the UK for the new rolling stock.

As this post mentions. We need more capacity:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=135556

 

[najaB]

But ultimately most of our network needs to be able to handle more passengers.

So moving HS2 over to a new standard could be the first move in many that will result in greater capacity on the network.

The existing network is *not* going to be rebuilt to a new structures gauge. It just isn't going to happen for reasons that have been discussed numerous times on the forum already. It would be cheaper to build entirely new lines that duplicate the ECML, GEML, GWML and WCLM for less than the cost of widening any one of them to a new loading gauge.

Plus generate jobs in the UK for the new rolling stock.

Rolling stock will be built where it is cheapest. Buying British just for the sake of it is an outmoded concept. Not to mention the fact that it wouldn't be possible to sell that rolling stock overseas.

 

[Trog]

It was a bad idea when Brunel tried it and it is a bad idea now, for much the same reasons of compatibility with the rest of the network.

There is a need for trains to run off the end of the high speed lines onto the existing network, making the track gauge in particular non standard defeats that. Also curving is easier on narrower track gauges and if you wanted you can run large bodied stock on standard gauge track. So using a wider track gauge while having many problems also gives little benefit

 

[J-2739]

It was a bad idea when Brunel tried it and it is a bad idea now, for much the same reasons of compatibility with the rest of the network.

There is a need for trains to run off the end of the high speed lines onto the existing network, making the track gauge in particular non standard defeats that. Also curving is easier on narrower track gauges and if you wanted you can run large bodied stock on standard gauge track. So using a wider track gauge while having many problems also gives little benefit

I think a wider trains would be more suited to a wider track gauge, like think 3.8 m, to lower the centre of gravity and increase stability. But you are right on the other points.

 

[randyrippley]

It would make far more sense for HS2 to abandon the ancient concept of wheel on rail and go for new technology. Maglev would make more sense: quieter, faster, cleaner and probably more energy efficient. Time to abandon the ancient, and become world leaders in bleeding edge industries, especially when they are ones we invented in the first place!

 

[najaB]

I think a wider trains would be more suited to a wider track gauge, like think 3.8 m, to lower the centre of gravity and increase stability. But you are right on the other points.

You are nowhere near the stability limits of standard gauge even with stock significantly wider than current.

 

[jopsuk]

The Japanese main network (not Shinkansen) has a track gauge of 1067mm and a maximum carriage width of 3000mm (versus ~2810mm in GB)

 

[edwin_m]

We've done this to death recently on another thread. There is no reason to adopt a broader track guage, there is an argument to adopt a larger structure gauge than on other UK routes and on HS2 that is what is being done.

 

[Holly]

Future-proofing will not be achieved unless the loading gauge is built larger than any foreseeable need.
If you don't build it too large today then for sure in 100 years time it will be too small.

 

[najaB]

Future-proofing will not be achieved unless the loading gauge is built larger than any foreseeable need.
If you don't build it too large today then for sure in 100 years time it will be too small.

Just have to put up with 100 years of people falling into the gap between the train and the platform edge. :roll:

 

[NSEFAN]

It would make far more sense for HS2 to abandon the ancient concept of wheel on rail and go for new technology. Maglev would make more sense: quieter, faster, cleaner and probably more energy efficient. Time to abandon the ancient, and become world leaders in bleeding edge industries, especially when they are ones we invented in the first place!

Maglev is probably not that green or cost effective until higher-temperature superconductors are made to reduce levitation costs, especially for the comparatively short routes we have in the UK where the relative time saved would be minimal. Metal flanged wheels on rails are extremely well understood and good at what they do. HS2 is solving a relatively immediate problem with an established technology, which makes it better value for the taxpayer compared to investing in a later-outmoded technology for maglev.

 

[najaB]

... probably more energy efficient...

It's very hard to beat steel wheel on steel rail for efficiency.

 

[WatcherZero]

The problem with Maglev is while you have the energy cost of friction with wheels that is usually less than the energy cost of lifting the entire train and holding it against gravity and the downward aerodyamic forces of a body designed to stop it flying off the track.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Maglev is also very difficult when it comes to junctions. Point-to-point with no branches is do-able, anything else works better with traditional railway technology. And the ultimate maximum speed possible with trains is still above the speeds that anyone has thought necessary or viable in everyday use.

 

[edwin_m]

Maglev also has the overwhelming disadvantage of requiring new infrastructure over its entire route. A London to Birmingham Maglev would only benefit those cities and any intermediate stops whereas a London to Birmingham HS2 route also benefits destinations further north.

Friction (strictly speaking "rolling resistance") is very low on steel wheel trains. At high speeds aerodynamic forces are far greater and these will be pretty much the same for a maglev.

 

[miami]

Just have to put up with 100 years of people falling into the gap between the train and the platform edge. :roll:

There's no technical reason you couldn't build structures to accomodate much wider/taller trains, and then build out the platforms to be 6m wide rather than 3m wide. In 80 years time if you wanted to widen carriages by 3m, you could reduce the platform from 6m to 4.5m at half a dozen stations on the line.

However the cost of building a wider tunnel than needed would not be worthwhile for benefits in 2100.

 

[edwin_m]

All bridges and viaducts would also have to be wider and stronger than necessary, on the off-chance that bigger trains (which would also be heavier) were introduced at some time in the future. And the whole formation would also have to be wider, increasing the land take and earthworks costs, unless someone was prepared to widen these later and move the OLE back to create clearance for wider trains. Not to mention spacing the tracks further apart.

 

[suzanneparis]

Despite being accused of not knowing the difference between track and structures gauge, I do. I also realise that a lot of europe runs wider 'structures' on the same gauge track.

However, the UK railway network is massively overloaded on some routes and it would seem that the only solution would be to go for a wider structure or even more future proof, a wider track and a much wider structure.

A lot of investment I know. But the current situation is failing.

 

[miami]

I don't see how a wider track would help. Wider structures (aside from platforms) yes, 4-tracking the route, yes, but that costs a lot of money for benefit a long time in the future.

 

[NSEFAN]

Despite being accused of not knowing the difference between track and structures gauge, I do. I also realise that a lot of europe runs wider 'structures' on the same gauge track.

However, the UK railway network is massively overloaded on some routes and it would seem that the only solution would be to go for a wider structure or even more future proof, a wider track and a much wider structure.

A lot of investment I know. But the current situation is failing.

If HS2 was an entirely self-contained system, there may be scope to build to much larger loading guage than the current mainlines. Even with a magic money tree, increasing the loading guage of existing lines is extremely slow and disruptive, as we can't just tell people to go away for 5 years whilst we completely rebuild the line (you can just about get away with it in certain circumstances, but not a major route like the WCML). This is all ignoring the added initial cost of using bespoke loading and track gauges.

 

[subria]

I recall that Russia is the only country currently running broad track gauge high speed rail (250kph) based off widened Velaro bodied stock. The seating layout if I recall when I traveled on it last year was still the standard 2+2, and 2+1 in Business class. Certainly roomy, but not particularly different.

Of course they've gone down that route due to the existing track infrastructure in Russia, which is broad gauge, but the costs of acquiring custom gauge stock will always be higher than standard gauge stock which can be bought off the shelf.

 

[najaB]

Despite being accused of not knowing the difference between track and structures gauge, I do.

With respect, I still think you do not, not fully anyway. What advantage would wider than standard track gauge provide?

 

[J-2739]

I recall that Russia is the only country currently running broad track gauge high speed rail (250kph) based off widened Velaro bodied stock. The seating layout if I recall when I traveled on it last year was still the standard 2+2, and 2+1 in Business class. Certainly roomy, but not particularly different.

Of course they've gone down that route due to the existing track infrastructure in Russia, which is broad gauge, but the costs of acquiring custom gauge stock will always be higher than standard gauge stock which can be bought off the shelf.

While 1435mm gauge is definitely standard, you couldn't really call other gauges custom, for example, the 1067mm and Indian Broad gauges are examples of relatively widespread track gauges in their regions.